Vaudreuil Nicholas J, Dooney Thomas, Lee Thay Q, Limpisvasti Orr
Kerlan-Jobe Institute/Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Proliance Surgeons, Everett Bone and Joint, Everett, WA, USA.
JSES Int. 2022 Aug 10;6(6):978-983. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2022.07.007. eCollection 2022 Nov.
Massive rotator cuff tears can be difficult to manage and consensus regarding treatment is debated. The purpose of this questionnaire study was to examine surgeon techniques and considerations for treatment of massive rotator cuff tears including how they implement superior capsule reconstruction (SCR), when indicated.
A 21-item questionnaire was sent to members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine. Questions covered management preferences for massive rotator cuff tears, rotator cuff repair and SCR techniques, beliefs about SCR, implant choices, use of augments, demographics, and patient management scenarios.
The questionnaire had 230 respondents. In rotator cuff repair of massive rotator cuff tears, preferred responses were long head biceps tendon preservation (when asymptomatic, 45.3%), routine subacromial decompression (62.1%), solid threaded anchors (71.1%), double row configuration (65.1%), and bone marrow stimulation of the footprint (55.6%). For providers that perform SCR (n = 166), preferred strategies included long head biceps tenodesis (55.4%), human dermal allograft tissue (93.2%), glenoid fixation with 3 implants (71.2%) using solid threaded anchors (42.3%), and humeral fixation with 2 solid threaded anchors medially (71.0%), and 2 solid threaded anchors laterally (46.9%). Other highly recommended strategies were side-to-side repair to the posterior rotator cuff if able (97.6%) and to use the thickest graft available (62.2%).
Despite improved techniques and growing interest in SCR, many questions still remain. This study identifies the significant variability in repair constructs and methodology with SCR; further investigation into these variables could be analyzed to identify best practice guidelines.
巨大肩袖撕裂的治疗颇具挑战性,治疗方案尚无定论。本问卷调查研究旨在探讨外科医生治疗巨大肩袖撕裂的技术及考量因素,包括在有指征时如何实施上关节囊重建(SCR)。
向美国肩肘外科医师学会和美国运动医学骨科协会成员发放了一份包含21个条目的问卷。问题涵盖巨大肩袖撕裂的治疗偏好、肩袖修复及SCR技术、对SCR的看法、植入物选择、增强材料的使用、人口统计学信息以及患者管理场景。
该问卷共收到230份回复。在巨大肩袖撕裂的肩袖修复中,首选的处理方式包括保留肱二头肌长头肌腱(无症状时,45.3%)、常规肩峰下减压(62.1%)、实心螺纹锚钉(71.1%)、双排结构(65.1%)以及对肩袖止点进行骨髓刺激(55.6%)。对于实施SCR的医生(n = 166),首选策略包括肱二头肌长头腱固定术(55.4%)、人真皮同种异体移植组织(93.2%)、使用实心螺纹锚钉(42.3%)通过3枚植入物进行肩胛盂固定(71.2%)、在内侧使用2枚实心螺纹锚钉进行肱骨固定(71.0%)以及在外侧使用2枚实心螺纹锚钉进行肱骨固定(46.9%)。其他高度推荐的策略包括若可能则将后肩袖进行侧对侧修复(97.6%)以及使用最厚的移植物(62.2%)。
尽管技术有所改进且对SCR的兴趣日益浓厚,但仍存在许多问题。本研究确定了SCR修复结构和方法存在显著差异;对这些变量进行进一步研究,有助于分析确定最佳实践指南。